Head2head debate: Has Capitalism Failed

Provocative title is provocative and misleading, but this Al Jazeera production on the banking crisis is insightful and worth watching. Obviously it isn’t possible to A-E the crisis, and this feature doesn’t pretend to do that, but it is still worth a listen:

Why are you wearing that Scieno-speak bullseye on your ass, son?

Wot? I did not mention scn once in my post so I don't follow.

http://tonyortega.org/2012/12/21/video-tiziano-lugli-releases-shit-scientologists-say/
VIDEO: Tiziano Lugli’s “Shit Scientologists Say,” Featuring Prominent Ex-Church Members

I just meant making amends for the crisis. Shesh. It's a good video with a lot of intelligent remarks and comments – let’s not derail shall we?

It's fascinating to listen to people talking about the excrement in the room without ever addressing the elephant producing the shit. They acknowledge that something changed in the 70s, but they don't specify what, though anyone who knows a little about history could quickly come up with the major change that occurred to the economy, in August 1971. Nixon even promised us it'd be a temporary change, but he lied.

So here we have people discussing everything but the elephant in the room. Good work if you can get it, but about that smell...

Oh I know this one! Jews.

No wait, I mean gold, specifically going off the gold standard.

Say, does it have to be gold? I mean, couldn't we link the value of the dollar to some other commodity?

I vote for helium. Non-reactive with everything else. Finite amount. Doesn't weigh much so it's easy to move around.

We probably will need helium one day. But we so love our balloons. Sadly, once helium is released into the atmosphere it is gone forever. So there's a bonus to my proposal to link the dollar to some quantity of helium. We'll stop squandering it on nothing of importance.

I suppose capitalism was all smelling of roses prior to 1971? Go ask the 19th century factory workers about that.

Your sarcasm is noted and understood. Thinking is hard, scoffing is easy.

What is so ironic is in a free market what you are suggesting would actually work. But since you don't understand the theory underlying money, you have no idea why it would work, hence the sarcasm.

Can you say IRONy.

The value of money is, afaik, what we agree it to be – and this is the reality whether it is or is not based on gold (since the value of gold is also what we agree it to be).

So…why is moving away from the gold standard a problem…? They are both arbitraries.

It's a discovery process. Money evolved over time from barter and the problem of the double coincidence of wants. Money is the catalyst that allows me to sell me ham, get money, then buy shoes. I don't have to find a shoemaker who wants ham, I only have to find someone with silver who wants ham. The money is a catalyst, coming out of the trade exactly as it went into the trade.

Prices are simply ratios between goods, with money as the common denominator.

(arbitraries--dude, get off the scilonese--it makes no sense in this context. Paper is not 'arbitrary'. Gold is not 'arbitrary', whatever that might mean to you)

paper can be printed in unlimited quantities. In my life time the dollar has lost 90% of its value.
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
The Federal reserve mission is

Losing 90% of its value in 60 years is NOT stability, its the polar opposite

Gold must be mined, which means, absent some huge gold strike, that we will have about 1.5% more gold this year than last (based on historical terms).

That means that if output is say 3%, then your money gets MORE valuable, meaning the same amount of money will buy more goods. This happened for over 100 years, about 1800-1910. It was after the Fed (which was the third time a national bank was created in the US, the first two being spectacular failures, and this one a failure by its own terms) that our dollar started losing value every year.

Inflation is when there is more money today than yesterday, Since the Fed is injecting $85B into the economy every month, then each dollar in your wallet is worth slightly less today than yesterday. Rising prices are NOT inflation, they are the symptom of inflation. The disease is the printing, the inflation is the result.

As I intimated with The Internet any commodity can be money, and there can be competing money, Silver, gold, copper, oil, helium, tobacco, in a free market people would be free to price their goods in any commodity, or dollars, even, and let the buyers decide how to proceed.

The reason the government wants to prevent gold and silver is because they can't inflate the money. This is something that has been known for 2000 years, so when you hear that gold is a barbarous relic, understand that the person saying it is either repeating talking points or assuming that you are too ignorant of history to understand that fiat money is how dictators and tyrants operate.

tl;dr; the FEd had failed in its mission, by its own standard.

But the Fed gave us The Internet. I couldn't have bought that 60 years ago, even if I had all the gold in Fort Knox.

If the problem is Federal spending unhinged from reasonable constraints, maybe we should address that problem more directly.

I tried to point this out to you in the other thread (albeit badly), but given that your wages rise in line with the cost of goods inflation isn’t the issue you make it out to be. The only way you are losing value, in relative terms, is if you hoard your money – you have the option to buy gold if you want to avoid this (also pointed out in the other thread).

The advantage for countries to have control over the value of their own currency is best seen by the negative outcome for Eurozone countries who were robbed of that option.

IF, as you accept, that prices between goods are simply ratios THEN it has no relevance what the exchange medium is. The ratio of product A to product B will remain a constant regardless of whether the exchange medium varies in value – so I’m failing to see the ‘problem’ you are claiming exists.

Deflation, which is what you are describing, is a whole other shedload of problems that you really don’t want to go near. Mortgages and loans would actually worsen as the real amounts owed would experience the same increase of 3% (to use your hypothetical) – that’s crippling.

The problem here is that you are conflating a few different issues, and getting the causality wrong. The issues you present as being problematic are not due to ditching the gold standard. This is frustrating when you consider that the actual causes (corporatism, politicians passing pro-corporate legislation, income inequality, etc.) are being ignored in favour of this horseshit argument about gold this and gold that. Hell, there are even loads of arguments to levy at the Fed – but why people focus on the one about gold given its wrongness always amazes me.

TLR:
The gold standard argument is bollocks, and trying to blame problems it hasn’t caused on it is silly.

I think I pointed out last time that fiat currency can work very well. but it takes a dedicated and thoughtful political system to handle it well. The Scandinavian countries are a good example of the system working as intended. The Canadians seem to have gotten the hang of it too.

The US system, not so much.

tl;dr: there ain't none, just start reading But it is tl;dr, no doubt

The fact that people (The 12 Feds) control the money supply when we have a central bank means that money WILL be manipulated for the needs of the government, not the people.

I want to take away the ability for the government to manipulate the money.

“given that your wages rise in line with the cost of goods given that your wages rise in line with the cost of goods ”

Pure assertion with no facts. In point of fact, wages never rise in line with inflation. See Cantillon effect. Has it occurred to you that the discrepancies in wealth that are in the news have gotten worse exactly when we went off gold? Can you accept that maybe there is a reason for that based in manipulating the money supply. The one thing we all use is money. It is in every economic transaction we ever make. If the money isn't honest, the hurts you and me far worse than it hurts the bankers and politicians. The Cantillion effect says that the first person to receive the inflated money gets the full value, while each subsequent person gets the inflated money (ie, less valuable),. That is why we are seeing the wage differences increasing at such a horrid rate.

Austrian economics predicted what is happening in Europe years ago. How did they know that the Euro was a bad idea?
And I say, the best advantage is for the PEOPLE to have control over their currency. What is good for government is rarely good for the people of that country.

Well, you are exactly right as far as you go. But ask yourself: do you prefer to money that is predictable, or do you prefer money that fluctuates in value? It makes no difference what you use as money, if it is done honestly. I agree. Dollars would work, if angels ran the Fed. Random guy mentions how it works elsewhere. But the Fed is not honest, and it never has been. Again, the Fed says that stable prices are its mandate, all while overseeing a horrid increase in prices.

Actually, what would happen is that people would take all that into account when they are negotiating. That's the point, if you know that prices are going to be 1.5% less next year, you take that into account in your current prices.

If this is a problem, then explain to me how deflation occurred for over 100 years, in the time of the most amazing rise in living standards the world has ever see? That happened in a deflationary economy. So your assertions isn't backed by facts nor supported by history.

You didn't really read what I had to say, did you? You saw GOLD and made a bunch of assumptions.
I don't want a gold standard. A 'standard' is imposed, The market doesn't like to have impositions, they distort the market and make it harder to read.

But I agree that corporatism is a big problem. Ask yourself Who created the fucking laws that allow corporations? Did you know that modern corporations were illegal until 1886? Ask what changed and why.

Hmmmm

Since I don't advocate for a gold standard, I wonder just who you are talking to.

Looking at what others countries are doing right, in order to find what your country is doing wrong, is always a good idea. But for some reason it has never worked well from the US perspective, and it baffles me as to why.

This is a derail, but I remember that press conference with the Finnish education representative. Over there they made education prioritise equal access, and worked to make teachers more respected (they are on a level of doctors over there). The results have been spectacular, with Finnish students performing consistently in the top 5 countries when participating in international tests. Naturally other countries, including the US, wanted to learn how they were doing it. The representative embarked on a world tour to lecture on the topic, and his conference in the US was borderline comical. He was asked, in multiple different ways, how the Finnish did standardised testing. He answered, truthfully, that they don’t do that, and explained (repeatedly) how they focused on equal access, valuing teachers, etc. It is a fucking embarrassment to watch these journalists have a mental fart as they just refused (or were incapable) of either getting it or taking the representative at his word.

Sorry for the derail, but this thread reminded me of that story – of how a group of people can become so fixated on a given cause being responsible for certain problems (in this case ‘moving from the gold standard caused X, Y, Z, etc.’) that they completely miss either the facts of the point.

/derail

I guess all those countries with fait money where wages do indeed rise in line with inflation don’t exist in your universe then….

Again, those countries where this isn’t happening don’t exist in your little bubble them.

Because they recognised that removing the government’s ability to control monetary policy to the extent previously possible would rob them of a valuable tool that can be used for stability? Rather ironic that you accepting the conclusion given by economists here while utterly rejecting the underlying reasons given for that conclusion….

Right here is a great example of where you are missing the point. In other countries where corporate influences are not as strong, governmental policy is in the people’s interests. In the US, where corporate influence is crazy, governmental policy is not in the people’s interest. Until you start recognising the elephant in the room, and realise why these problems don’t exist in countries lacking said elephant, then you’re wasting your breath.

Your connecting causation to the wrong thing. Why is fiat currency not an issue in other countries? Until you ask that question and start incorporating the real-world empirical data the question demands into your think then you’re missing a hell of a lot.

You’re not addressing the increasing debt problem. If you wish to argue that there shouldn’t be debt then fine, have that argument. But, since debt would exist in our system regardless of whether we have deflation or inflation I know which is preferable

Are you joking?? US history alone refutes you. Explain to me how the crashes in 1818, 1839 and 1930 don’t show to be full of shit here??? In each case the deflation amplified the debt, which when combined with a lack of new credit led to economic motherfuckery. These facts combined with the observation that the largest increase in standards of living has been in the last century (which is enough on its own to render your claim bollocks) seriously calls into question what you are claiming.

The Internet mention gold, you challenged The Internet. It seemed the reasonable inference, and so far the only thing ITT to implement your deflationary suggestion.

So explain to me what is wrong with the analysis I gave. Be specific.

Otherwise, I could make the exact same claim against the people ITT, they are fixated on their explanation. One group says "THe markets should decide" while the other side says "THe government should decide."

And since history has shown that markets that are allowed to operate make the society rich, while markets that are not allowed to operate make the society poor, I think it's pretty obvious that markets work better than governments for supplying us with what we need. That includes money. Government tells us monopolies are bad, while enforcing the major monopoly that affects literally every economic transaction made.

Oh for fuck's sake, anyone advocating a return to the gold standard is a fucking moron, I could explain to you why but I am so so tired of doing so. Read a book.

The world is not black and white. Both systems have their good points and their bad points. Looking at countries that have managed well or even thrived through the crisis, most run a system combining aspects of both. As the point made in the original video, a system with very little control, where the finance sector can do what they want with little or no consequences will serve the finance sector, not the country nor it's people.

oh for fuck's sake, anyone advocating for fiat currency is a fucking moron. I could explain to you why but I am so tired of doing so. read a book.
there, I can do it to. Really doesn't add anything to the convo
I'll add you one better, I'll give you a good starting point: A History of Money and Banking in the United States, by Murray Rothbard. very readable.

Not sure what you mean by 'both systems'
DO you mean commodity backed and fiat money?
If so there are no countries on commodity money.
What exactly, except for easy credit, does the fiat system bring to the table that commodity money can't do?

This is an excellent explanation of the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle. He explains how created credit (ie, fiat money) creates the business cycle.

No, I was referring to controlled and free market systems (i.e. some form of socialism and economic liberalism). The "controlled capitalism" of Northern Europe seems to work fairly well.

I would suggest you look deeper about the Swedish model. It is not what you seem to think. It is much more market oriented than most realize.

ah, thanks. That's called the mixed economy, a mix of free and socialist themes.
Then I'd wonder how well those controls are working...seems there are more rules and regulations each week, many of them created to plug bugs in the old law, a never ending search for the right combination of words that will stop the particular activity they don't like.

Seems a pretty futile way to go about it, like a dog chasing its tail. All those regulations force us to waste a bunch of time figuring out how to implement them (ObamaCare, anyone) and time spent documenting then. I read the other day that the US as a nation spends 3 million man YEARS each year on filling out our 1040s? Can you imagine what those three million people could produce that was useful if they weren't busy having to document their income so the government can keep tabs? that's a lot of stuff that isn't getting produced, totally wasted effort as far as the economy goes. it produces literally nothing of value to the economy.

I can imagine George and Thomas. "Ye have 3 million men working on paperwork to tell the king president how much ye owe him? Are ye daft, man?"

Of course it didn't add to the conversation, conversations about going back to the gold standard do not diserve to be added to. My aim certainly is not to convince you that you are wrong, since this would probably not happen even if I provided you with reasonably presented facts. My aim was to simply point out how much of a waste of time and energy these conversations can be.

As far as books go,Murray Rothbard was an anarcho capitalist ayn rand fanboi piece of shit, if you actually read his other material you will realize that what he is advocating for, is to let large corporations and the private sector handle things freely without regulation, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE DID AND OH BOY DID IT WORK WELL. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard40.html

I would rather recommend: The ascent of money by Niall Ferguson, which is not just about the USA but how ALL economic systems work, and the history of finances. Much more complete, not very biased and delivers pure cold hard facts. Hope you enjoy.

If you are too lazy to read (which I suspect you are after your recommendation), there is also a documentary series made about the book that goes a bit less into details but is still very fascinating:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-ascent-of-money/

Hailing from those parts I know pretty well what the Swedish model is like. The Scandinavian countries are all more or less like that, the exceptions being Norway, who won the oil lottery and can afford to be a bit more lenient on the rules.

It's not a perfect system, I suppose no system is without its faults. The main idea is to have a system with faults you can live with. Considering how the Scandinavian countries have coped with the economic crisis, I suppose a bit of rules and regulations is a fair price to pay.

Well, without Obamacare those three million men would produce those same papers, because no one, and particularly not insurance companies, are giving out money for free. Only difference would be the the tree millions being insurance employees doing it for a higher fees, because a private company has to earn money for the owners.

If the NHS type systems are as awfully costly and inefficient as often claimed, how come the US have one of the worst health care coverage in the civilized world, while spending twice the average amount of money per capita of OECD countries on health care?

lol
IOW you really don't know the first thing about Rand or Rothbard.

If you don't want to talk about this, why keep interrupting to tell me how stupid it all is. Once is enough. Or do you feel a need to counter the truth with your dissembling?

I'll defer to your knowledge, but wasnt' there some major changes a few years ago? I may be thinking of something else.

One rule begats another rule. That is my point. Once you go down that path, you will end with "everything not allowed is forbidden." see my last point

then you miss my point entirely. If we had a flat tax, for example, then those 3M people could work on making things, building, helping, rather than putting numbers on forms that NO ONE will ever look at again. It is makework of the worst most egregious sort, solely to let the government know what we are doing. It is in fact a form of spying, but they expect us to do it to ourselves (and the 5th amendment protections don't come into play, otherwise we couldn't be forced to submit papers that may tend to incriminate us)

The US is inefficient because of pricing, This is extremely well known in economics and medicine but since it is not politically acceptable to talk about constraints (economics is the dismal science for a reason) there is no way to actually address the pricing problem.

There was a Time article recently that pointed out how absurd the ChargeMaster price list is.,
This is a failure of government regulation, pure and simple, We are seeing exactly the effects of trying to legislate something that shouldn't be legislated, namely our relationship with our doctors.

Health care is the perfect example of Harry Browne's maxim: "Government is good at only one thing. It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, 'See if it weren't for the government, you couldn't walk.'"

The health care is a perfect example of how governments creates the problem (price and wage freeze in WWII) results in our getting health care from work (?!?!?!?) which means that the customer is cut out of the price loop, which means that the insurance companies and health care people are in a sense conspiring with each other to prevent us from finding out what it actually cost. Basic economics (first day: law of supply and demand) says that when you subsidize something, you get more of it (college being the other prime example, and the place where inflation has been outrageous) so this relationship ensures inflation.

The reason college and health care costs have soared is due to the government flooding those markets with cheap money. Basic law of supply and demand.

Finally, you say no system is without faults, to which I heartily concur. The point of economics is to point out ways in which to minimize those faults (rent seeking, for instance) and the point of politics is to negate economics, which enables rent seeking (for instance).

IOW, the governments enables the worst in people while the market enables to best in people.
Can you imagine ANY economic reason for conducting a forty year criminal medical experiment? A private party would be unlikely ever have done something so completely divorced from common sense and ethics, if only for economic and not moral reason. But this is exactly what we have come to expect from governments.

When business does criminal, they can be prosecuted. When governments do criminal they hide the evidence and call us traitors for exposing it.

The issue I have with this 'blame the gov' line is that there exist plenty of real-world examples of health care systems that work so much better than the US model - to the point where this line is shown to be sophistic claptrap. I would argue the issue is one of corporatism and lobbying rather than gov (although you can argue that the gov is weak in allowing this).

Too long etc

You demanded a better explanation than simple dismissal, I gave you one. Are you never satisfied?

It always is. With the economic downturn came an unavoidable restruction of the wellfare state. Downsizing is never pretty.

Surely people would still get sick, so someone would have to compensate them (either through private insurance companies or some civil service) ? That means someone would still have to keep tab on expenses. The aim must be to get that done in the most streamlined, least expensive way available.

Lots of countries are expensive, all the Northern European ones for instance. Yet the US beats even Norway who really spends a lot on their NHS.

Considering the banking crisis, I'd say markets and market actors can be fairly ruthless too. A bank or an insurance company will by nature have their own interest at heart. An elected giverment could, at least in theory, have your interest at heart.

Possibly not in the US though.

I dunno, scientology has done just fine conducting criminal medical experiments for money, divorced entirely from common sense and money.

I think you put too much stock in the humanity of of our financial masters. They just want to make a buck and will do anything to get. The history of labor reveals the horrors that were just fine as long as they were economically sound, ie: 16 hour days and child labor, etc.

Well, I found it interesting that you cited Niall Ferguson. I'd heard the name and looked at the Wiki enytry and found this:

That is the praxeological point of view in a nutshell. (Austrian economics is a subset of praxeology) I find it ironic that you quote someone who seems to accepts the praxeological point of view. I take it you weren't aware of that.

so maybe you are just sort of confused. Maybe you actually accept the Austrian school and have been fooled by people who gave you a wrong impression of it. If you think Niall has something to say, you'd probably find what the Austrians have to say interesting enough to study.

YMMV

You switched from taxes to medical care...not sure how to respond
in medical care, what I want is catastrophic coverage but not coverage of the regular. The system as it's evolving is as if I had to insure the tires, gasoline, oil and other consumables, and pay a co pay to buy gas, rather than just buy the gas, tires, etc. This is guaranteed to inflate prices. It is basic econ 101, law of supply and demand

Yep, we are pretty much idiots, I'll grant that.

Ruthlessness in business is a FAR different matter than ruthlessness in government. In business, it means bankruptcy and hardship, with government, it means death and destruction. Not comparable.

Can business people act badly? Of course. they are people. Can government people act badly? Just google bad cop no donut and sit back and watch.

Ask yourself, what does it mean for a politician to have my interest at heart? Since he doesn't know me, he can only guess. And since what I want directly contradicts what my neighbor wants. then there is no political way to parse the problem that doesn't result in one of us being cast aside, our interests not in his heart.

An elected government official has his own interests at heart, which is exactly what libertarianism accepts as universal. People do not become moral just because they work for the government. Which isn't to say there aren't noble people. But they aren't likely to get far in modern political life. A noble person would quickly find himself disgusted by the ignoble people he was forced to deal with day after day

An insurance company is limited in its greed by its need to continue in existence, this is called the law of constant dealings. What that means is that the way to succeed in business is to stay in business, and the way to stay in business is to satisfy your customers.

The government has exactly the opposite incentives. They don't need our approval or consent. And don't tell me that voting is the way to go. I vote every time I spend a dollar. That means that businesses receive literally millions of times more feedback in a 24/7/365 basis, versus voting once every two years for candidates that I have little to no say in selecting. It's like being told I can shop at Target or WalMart, but not any other stores.

I donno, it was you who brought up flat taxation. I thought we were still discussing what those three million people you mention should be doing. My point is that as long as you have 1) some sort of healthcare, and 2) someone want economic oversight over how that money is spent, then those three million people are going to be occupied creating that overview, whether by filling out forms or something else.

I may be jaded comming from a small social democracy at the outskirts of the world, but here politicians actually are in it for (what they believe to be) the best for everyday people. Granted, I may not agree with some of them of how to make a good society, but that does not make them greedy, powerhungry people. Now, unlike you I live in a multi-party representative democracy with a single chamber, making voting a fairly effective tool. Of course, it is not a perfect tool, there are still assholes and people of questionable intellect and integrity in our system, but they are not the majority.

You guys really need to overhaul your political system. It has not kept pace with time.

You keep telling the world you are innocent of economic knowledge. Why you want to do that?

@RG
the example I gave was that 3M man years of time are spent on tax reporting. This is a drag on the economy. Those 3M years of time could have been better spent. IOW, don't you think that making iPods, toilet paper and cars would be a better use of our limited time than filling out paperwork that will looked at once and never seen again?

As for representative democracy, I tried seeing some of my local politicians. They were all lovey dovey with the scilons and refused to talk to me.

So much for representative democracy in America. Unless you have a voting block behind you, you are as nothing to the elected officials.

Maybe you could explain what was silly about my comment? I was saying that businesses can survive better if they get big, which they can do by buying up other businesses.

Businesses buying out other businesses is a perfectly valid activity in a market.
Let's examine Standard Oil back in the day..

Standard Oil was considered a monopoly, but no monopoly drops prices by 80% while they have a monopoly. If they did, they don't follow the definition of monopoly (high prices, limited product) Hence, Standard Oil was NOT a monopoly. (!)

When the competitors realized that Rockefeller was buying up his competitors, the competitors started creating shell companies to sell to Rockefeller. It took him a while to catch on. So while that is 'evidence' for your claim, the reality is Rockefeller was making a horrid mistake.

Also, you ignore that good companies understand the problems of too big. Gore Tex, the fabric makers, they create a new division when they get to 150 people. They build a new place with parking spots for 150, when the parking lot is full, they know its time to split. This allows them yo grow and retain the personal touch.

On the other end of big, we have oil refineries where big means way cheaper. I read recently that a large oil refinery is up to 3x more efficient than a small one. IOW, big means much cheaper gas.

And then you also ignore that buying up smaller companies can mean better products at lower prices for you and me. So when you assert what you did, it so totally ignores the rest of the factors involved.

You also assume that the company buying the new company will flourish and prosper. I can think of many mergers that were a disaster (HP-Compaq).

So, as long as the government isn't distorting the market through trying to pick winners and losers. then all the activity you seem to think is bad, is actually the exact thing the economy is supposed to do, namely it is a discovery process that finds out who is willing to buy what at what price.

What you see as process of agglomeration I see it driven by government distortions in the market (It is easier to deal with government regulations when you have 10,000 employes than when you have 100 employees.) Hence the drive for bigger. IOW, it is a market distortion driven by tax policy.

So when you say that businesses can survive better bigger, that is only part of the reality,. The truth is, some do better bigger, some do better smaller, and all are distorted by government policy, meaning we are poorer than we could be without these distortions.

Wow I sure do seem to ignore a lot of stuff. I guess I'm just retarded. No wonder you don't seem to like me very much.